China leads in some scientific fields—materials science, chemistry, engineering. The U.S. remains dominant in biomedical research, space science, and theoretical physics. Bibliometric data show China leading in article volume, but not in citation impact or Nobel-level originality across the board. China also leads in some applied tech sectors: 5G infrastructure, surveillance systems, high-speed rail, drone manufacturing, solar panel production, and aspects of EV battery manufacturing.
So where do you think this is going? The country was nowhere just 20 years ago. It led in nothing. Now? materials science, chemistry, engineering, 5G, high speed rail, drones solar panels, EV batteries...Can someone tell me the trend?
I think it's "going" towards the largest market crash in human history if the size of the Chinese real estate bubble is to be believed, combined with the largest demographic crash in human history if Chinese TFR is to be believed, and possibly the most catastrophic military defeat in human history if a country that imports 80% of its oil and 35% of its calories wanting to invade Taiwan is to be believed.
If they manage to keep the tech boom going under those conditions I'll be very impressed, but I also wouldn't count on it.
The real estate bubble will certainly hurt people who own real estate. I'm not sure why anyone else would care. They will get cheaper housing out of it. Americans look at China and talk about them as if there is something else to it. I mean, yes, it will hurt, but it will just hurt paper profits that were never real. Not every retired school teacher will stay a millionaire. Sorry.
China TFR is low, but it's about the same as other Asian countries. Comparable to Taiwan, Japan, etc. However, the PRC *still* has hundreds of millions of young people. Absolute numbers count for a lot. It will be a century before they have any lack of young workers.
> "The real estate bubble will certainly hurt people who own real estate"
That's most of the Chinese population (it's essentially become their default savings mechanism), not to mention a vast array of other companies that invested in real estate firms like Evergrande. I think you're underestimating the likely scale of ripple effects here- I fully expect the collapse of their housing bubble to cause a *global* economic recession, without even thinking about the effects within China.
> "It will be a century before they have any lack of young workers"
The absolute number of old-age pensioners that need support is going to be larger than their workforce pretty soon, so these aren't just free labour any more, unless the elderly start rotting in gutters. Which I guess could happen, but that's not exactly energising to national morale.
Also, with regard to birth rate: The same trends are happening everywhere. It's a serious problem, but it's not a Chinese problem so much as a world problem. By 2050, absolute numbers of young Chinese will be around 100 million. The only competitor in non-low IQ countries is the US, where it probably will be around 40 million. That's assuming a stable population, which is in my view unlikely (the trends are running sharply down for reasons I think all Aporia readers know). So by 2050, China will still have vast numbers of young workers cf. the US. My point was that absolute numbers matter.
Still, I think my original shrug was foolish. A century? No. Maybe 50 years. I was using a comparative standard and see no reason to modify it. No one can compete with China. I wish this was not the case, but facts are facts.
The assertion that a collapse in China’s real estate market is “destroying the wealth of the Chinese people” misstates both the nature of the alleged wealth and its distribution. It confuses nominal valuation with material prosperity, and speculative ownership with collective benefit.
Roughly 70 to 80 percent of Chinese household net worth is nominally located in real estate. But this is not circulating capital, nor is it productive investment. It is largely immobile and dependent on continued belief in upward price movement. Much of it sits in vacant units, often in marginal cities, acquired not to be lived in but to be held. Held why? Because, of course, "real estate always goes up." In other words, because you can get rich by sitting on your rear and letting bankers manipulate the population
This system benefited early entrants and property holders. It excluded younger adults, particularly in Tier 1 cities, where price-to-income ratios exceed 30:1. Among Chinese males aged 25 to 35 — the demographic typically expected to form households — only about 40 percent own property at all. Of those, only 40 to 45 percent own their homes outright, without mortgage debt. These figures, drawn from longitudinal studies by Zhu (2012), Cheng et al. (2016), Gan et al. (2015–2020), and Wang et al. (2018), indicate that the oft-cited linkage between “the Chinese people” and real estate wealth collapses under scrutiny. A minority owns. A smaller minority owns free and clear. The benefits were never universal. And remember that the 18% or so who actually "own" includes probably more than half who own a tiny house in a poor area. In sum, 90% of younger Chinese men are locked out. This is not a picture of wealth. It is a picture of generational destruction. Wealth will not be lost. But fantasies of wealth will vaporize in a flicker. It is indeed already happening. Prices in, for example, Huizhou, are down by half and still descending. So what? Paper money is paper: it burns.
Citing 2003 data to support a 2025 claim is like evaluating a surgeon’s current skill based on his residency. The 86% figure is not wrong, but it’s outdated by more than two decades. It was true in the early WTO-entry era, when China’s role was overwhelmingly as assembler. But the landscape has shifted.
By the mid-2010s, the domestic share of high-tech exports had increased significantly. Estimates vary, but by 2016, Chinese-owned firms were reportedly responsible for over 40% of high-tech exports. Huawei, DJI, BOE, and others emerged not just as assemblers, but as integrated developers and IP holders—especially in telecom, optics, and consumer electronics.
So Matthews is framing a real phenomenon with obsolete numbers. The original point—that a large portion of China’s high-tech exports still rely on foreign-controlled inputs—remains partially true. But the 2003 figure is a relic, and using it without updating the trend line undermines the argument’s credibility. If China’s domestic innovation remains limited, it should be shown in current form, not by snapshotting the global supply chain from two decades back.
This must have been a paid propaganda ad by some Western nutcase. If this was true why the trade war??? This article is proof of the opposite and China's growing tech prowess!
I think the environmental damage of fracking technology has been exaggerated (relative to conventional drilling) and the natural gas biproducts of fracking have actually been important to the US meeting Kyoto Protocol targets. (Gas releases about half as much CO2 compared to oil or coal.)
In last century's energy. China's renewable energy is the future. Given the cuts in R&D in our country, we will be stuck in the past as the world moves into the future.
Renewables will probably never be cost-competitive with coal or nuclear in the northern hemisphere, unless battery tech gets at least an order of magnitude cheaper (and even then, land-use is a significant constraint/tradeoff.)
Doesn't solve any of the other problems relating to China cannibalising their social fabric and self-sufficiency for the sake of short-term GDP, though.
China has cheaper energy cost than the vast majority of the West. Its the secret to China's industrial might. They have dark factories where no human workers are on the factory floor. Its why economists under estimate China's economy using satellite imagery. The number of energy projects are a better measure of China's economy because industries use about 60% of China's energy.
China's green energy production is almost as much as all the US's production. China leads in nuclear energy. China just built the first working Thorium nuclear generator. China is putting its surpluses into all green energy research. It’s looking into putting solar panels in orbit, hydrogen, cheaper battery technology, etc. The future of energy is in China's hand just like the auto industry now. China is powering the world with green energy.
As for social fabric, we need to look in the mirror in the West. Industries are uncompetitive. Human capital are following behind. Infrastructures are old and from the last century. Food and energy prices are higher than China. The trade war is proof of this.
Interesting assessment. But it would be more believable with links to sources. I take all opinions on China with a large grain of salt without sources.
The list of those who feature his work is telling. All are neocons who support U.S. hegemony, and China is the number one threat to world hegemony. He is reminiscent of Gordon Chang.
Actions speak louder than words. The trade war by Trump is reality. This propaganda is proof of the flailing in the West. If this article was true there would be no trade war.
China leads in some scientific fields—materials science, chemistry, engineering. The U.S. remains dominant in biomedical research, space science, and theoretical physics. Bibliometric data show China leading in article volume, but not in citation impact or Nobel-level originality across the board. China also leads in some applied tech sectors: 5G infrastructure, surveillance systems, high-speed rail, drone manufacturing, solar panel production, and aspects of EV battery manufacturing.
So where do you think this is going? The country was nowhere just 20 years ago. It led in nothing. Now? materials science, chemistry, engineering, 5G, high speed rail, drones solar panels, EV batteries...Can someone tell me the trend?
I think it's "going" towards the largest market crash in human history if the size of the Chinese real estate bubble is to be believed, combined with the largest demographic crash in human history if Chinese TFR is to be believed, and possibly the most catastrophic military defeat in human history if a country that imports 80% of its oil and 35% of its calories wanting to invade Taiwan is to be believed.
If they manage to keep the tech boom going under those conditions I'll be very impressed, but I also wouldn't count on it.
The real estate bubble will certainly hurt people who own real estate. I'm not sure why anyone else would care. They will get cheaper housing out of it. Americans look at China and talk about them as if there is something else to it. I mean, yes, it will hurt, but it will just hurt paper profits that were never real. Not every retired school teacher will stay a millionaire. Sorry.
China TFR is low, but it's about the same as other Asian countries. Comparable to Taiwan, Japan, etc. However, the PRC *still* has hundreds of millions of young people. Absolute numbers count for a lot. It will be a century before they have any lack of young workers.
> "The real estate bubble will certainly hurt people who own real estate"
That's most of the Chinese population (it's essentially become their default savings mechanism), not to mention a vast array of other companies that invested in real estate firms like Evergrande. I think you're underestimating the likely scale of ripple effects here- I fully expect the collapse of their housing bubble to cause a *global* economic recession, without even thinking about the effects within China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3hcmihlSg4
> "It will be a century before they have any lack of young workers"
The absolute number of old-age pensioners that need support is going to be larger than their workforce pretty soon, so these aren't just free labour any more, unless the elderly start rotting in gutters. Which I guess could happen, but that's not exactly energising to national morale.
Also, with regard to birth rate: The same trends are happening everywhere. It's a serious problem, but it's not a Chinese problem so much as a world problem. By 2050, absolute numbers of young Chinese will be around 100 million. The only competitor in non-low IQ countries is the US, where it probably will be around 40 million. That's assuming a stable population, which is in my view unlikely (the trends are running sharply down for reasons I think all Aporia readers know). So by 2050, China will still have vast numbers of young workers cf. the US. My point was that absolute numbers matter.
Still, I think my original shrug was foolish. A century? No. Maybe 50 years. I was using a comparative standard and see no reason to modify it. No one can compete with China. I wish this was not the case, but facts are facts.
The assertion that a collapse in China’s real estate market is “destroying the wealth of the Chinese people” misstates both the nature of the alleged wealth and its distribution. It confuses nominal valuation with material prosperity, and speculative ownership with collective benefit.
Roughly 70 to 80 percent of Chinese household net worth is nominally located in real estate. But this is not circulating capital, nor is it productive investment. It is largely immobile and dependent on continued belief in upward price movement. Much of it sits in vacant units, often in marginal cities, acquired not to be lived in but to be held. Held why? Because, of course, "real estate always goes up." In other words, because you can get rich by sitting on your rear and letting bankers manipulate the population
This system benefited early entrants and property holders. It excluded younger adults, particularly in Tier 1 cities, where price-to-income ratios exceed 30:1. Among Chinese males aged 25 to 35 — the demographic typically expected to form households — only about 40 percent own property at all. Of those, only 40 to 45 percent own their homes outright, without mortgage debt. These figures, drawn from longitudinal studies by Zhu (2012), Cheng et al. (2016), Gan et al. (2015–2020), and Wang et al. (2018), indicate that the oft-cited linkage between “the Chinese people” and real estate wealth collapses under scrutiny. A minority owns. A smaller minority owns free and clear. The benefits were never universal. And remember that the 18% or so who actually "own" includes probably more than half who own a tiny house in a poor area. In sum, 90% of younger Chinese men are locked out. This is not a picture of wealth. It is a picture of generational destruction. Wealth will not be lost. But fantasies of wealth will vaporize in a flicker. It is indeed already happening. Prices in, for example, Huizhou, are down by half and still descending. So what? Paper money is paper: it burns.
Citing 2003 data to support a 2025 claim is like evaluating a surgeon’s current skill based on his residency. The 86% figure is not wrong, but it’s outdated by more than two decades. It was true in the early WTO-entry era, when China’s role was overwhelmingly as assembler. But the landscape has shifted.
By the mid-2010s, the domestic share of high-tech exports had increased significantly. Estimates vary, but by 2016, Chinese-owned firms were reportedly responsible for over 40% of high-tech exports. Huawei, DJI, BOE, and others emerged not just as assemblers, but as integrated developers and IP holders—especially in telecom, optics, and consumer electronics.
So Matthews is framing a real phenomenon with obsolete numbers. The original point—that a large portion of China’s high-tech exports still rely on foreign-controlled inputs—remains partially true. But the 2003 figure is a relic, and using it without updating the trend line undermines the argument’s credibility. If China’s domestic innovation remains limited, it should be shown in current form, not by snapshotting the global supply chain from two decades back.
This article omits comparison of china in 2024-2025. Comparing 2003 china is very different even 2014 china.
When I need information about Chinese science and technology, my first thought is, "What do Falun Gong YouTube influencers have to say about it?"
China leads the world in all the sciences and most technologies. 17 of the top 20 research institutes are Chinese, 80% of AI patents are Chinese....
What happened to Aporia, and what explains its rapid decline in editorial standards?
This must have been a paid propaganda ad by some Western nutcase. If this was true why the trade war??? This article is proof of the opposite and China's growing tech prowess!
Glossing over the rapid decline of the United States and its European vassals on all levels other than IT.
Only via fracking which is unsustainable over time.
All fossil fuel use is "unsustainable" over time, so I don't know why you'd bring this up as a particular drawback to shale fracking.
Well, dude, fracking is even more unsustainable over time. It’s a very temporary solution and causes more environmental damage.
I think the environmental damage of fracking technology has been exaggerated (relative to conventional drilling) and the natural gas biproducts of fracking have actually been important to the US meeting Kyoto Protocol targets. (Gas releases about half as much CO2 compared to oil or coal.)
https://insights.globalspec.com/article/17062/study-differences-in-the-environmental-toll-of-fracking-versus-conventional-drilling-are-negligible
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032124007949
US is a leader in energy, as well.
In last century's energy. China's renewable energy is the future. Given the cuts in R&D in our country, we will be stuck in the past as the world moves into the future.
Renewables will probably never be cost-competitive with coal or nuclear in the northern hemisphere, unless battery tech gets at least an order of magnitude cheaper (and even then, land-use is a significant constraint/tradeoff.)
To be fair, China is scaling up nuclear as well, and seems to be ahead of the adoption curve- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKQsr9v2C0
Doesn't solve any of the other problems relating to China cannibalising their social fabric and self-sufficiency for the sake of short-term GDP, though.
China has cheaper energy cost than the vast majority of the West. Its the secret to China's industrial might. They have dark factories where no human workers are on the factory floor. Its why economists under estimate China's economy using satellite imagery. The number of energy projects are a better measure of China's economy because industries use about 60% of China's energy.
China's green energy production is almost as much as all the US's production. China leads in nuclear energy. China just built the first working Thorium nuclear generator. China is putting its surpluses into all green energy research. It’s looking into putting solar panels in orbit, hydrogen, cheaper battery technology, etc. The future of energy is in China's hand just like the auto industry now. China is powering the world with green energy.
As for social fabric, we need to look in the mirror in the West. Industries are uncompetitive. Human capital are following behind. Infrastructures are old and from the last century. Food and energy prices are higher than China. The trade war is proof of this.
Are you a bot?
Typical response to facts…
"US is a leader in energy, as well."
By what measure?
Interesting assessment. But it would be more believable with links to sources. I take all opinions on China with a large grain of salt without sources.
The article links to several academic papers.
—NC
The list of those who feature his work is telling. All are neocons who support U.S. hegemony, and China is the number one threat to world hegemony. He is reminiscent of Gordon Chang.
That isn't true—Mises Institute is libertarian and Chronicles is paleocon.
—NC
"That isn't true—Mises Institute is libertarian and Chronicles is paleocon."
Label them as you wish, the point is that it reeks of U.S. propaganda.
I take it you agree with the assertions made in the article?
I don't necessarily agree with the overall argument, but it makes some valid points.
—NC
"I don't necessarily agree with the overall argument, but it makes some valid points."
Thanks for your reply.
Actions speak louder than words. The trade war by Trump is reality. This propaganda is proof of the flailing in the West. If this article was true there would be no trade war.